Maybe the terms real and unreal are a little confusing. I'm not quite sure what an unreal hand is. In fact, I think the whole discussion is plagued with confusing semantics. I certainly accept everything as being real and I certainly wouldn't say Allah's yad as you described is not "real" or is unreal... since to me, unreal almost indicates the connotation of untrue. That is why when I view something as metaphor or yad as power or something else, I would not call it unreal because to do so makes it sound somewhat untrue... and in fact, that is exactly the kind of argument shanqiti makes, which to me is a little superficial. He states that everything in the Quran is true, and since majaz essentially involves negation (if I say he is a lion, then it can also mean he is not a lion), therefore, majaz is invalid since it negates the sifaat or other things in the Quran. To me, this is superficial because majaz elevates the meaning to a different plane, it does not simply negate the statement and leave it at that. He is a lion does not become a negated untrue statement, it simply carries a different more elevated/sublime meaning. Nor would I then say he is an unreal lion, because it simply is a strange thing to say. In the context of a human being, he is a real lion with the characteristics that make a lion distinguished.. without literally being a lion, he is a lion.